English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Willis of Summertown Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Willis of Summertown]

311: After Clause 73, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to deliver on the environment and climate changeStrategic authorities, mayoral, or local authorities must, in the exercise of their functions, and when delivering on areas of competence in section 2, take all reasonable steps to contribute to— (a) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;(b) the achievement of biodiversity targets set under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021;(c) adapting to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that local government was aligned with the Government’s national targets for climate change and the environment, and give them a duty to advance progress towards meeting them.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to Amendment 311. This amendment is to address a systemic issue that we and local authorities already face and will continue to face. That is the twin threats of climate change and biodiversity loss, the related actions required and the costs of addressing these. Put simply, the amendment would require the new strategic authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute towards the UK’s legally binding targets that sit under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 when exercising their functions.

This is not just something we have been talking about in the House of Lords or the other place. There are lots of people outside of this place who want to see this as well. More than 500 local councillors, including 20 council leaders and a quarter of climate cabinet members, supported a letter that went to the Government about this. While some authorities have high levels of ambition, they all say that delivery is stymied by the lack of a duty—their words, not mine.

On the flip side, not all authorities have high ambitions to deliver, and we cannot create a postcode lottery. Climate change does not care what the personal views are of individuals in certain councils, even if they want us to believe so. The Government must ensure that contribution to delivery is across the board, and, as we raised with the Minister in a meeting with her before Easter Recess, some authorities have expressed that they do not intend to undertake work towards these targets. It will not happen without a duty.

It is also worth noting that the LGA has been working on this and undertook a consultation about the implementation of such a duty. It found that

“responses have revealed a clear consensus support, which the LGA has adopted as its headline position”

and that local authorities

“need statutory duties and powers, sufficient funding and robust support to lead on climate action”.

So it is really very disappointing and, frankly, disheartening that, despite a wide base of support for this idea from local authorities, the Government have, in essence, dismissed it entirely and neither responded to my letter of last month nor addressed the points raised in the meeting that I and colleagues from across the parties had with the Minister before Easter. There are no good reasons not to do this when it comes down to it. London, in essence, already has a duty, and I have not heard any complaints that this is an issue in London. Indeed, it is likely why the capital is leaps and bounds ahead of other parts of the country when it comes to tackling these twin threats.

We ought to be really clear that are talking about duties which are legally binding on the Government to deliver, so I believe that it is perfectly right—and so do my colleagues— and acceptable that we give that duty to other tiers of government in this country.

I urge the Minister and the Government more widely to get on board with this and hope that the Minister can respond on why they are opposed to this statutory duty. How do they think that they are going to reach these binding targets without one? If they are waiting for a final report from the LGA, why are they not using this legislation to allow an enabling clause so that this can be achieved? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for Amendment 311 and for the useful engagement that I have had with her and with the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on this issue. I apologise that the response that the noble Baroness was waiting for was held up over the Easter period. I have chased it up and hope that she will get it shortly.

I have consistently made the point that many local and strategic authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues. It is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. On net zero, the Government offer support for local government, including through the Local Power Plan, published by Great British Energy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which sets out the UK’s largest-ever public investment in community energy. Backed by up to £1 billion, the plan supports more than 1,000 local and community energy projects. Great British Energy’s support also includes the £10 million mayoral renewables fund. We are investing a landmark £13.2 billion in the warm homes plan up to 2030, including the £2.5 billion allocated to the warm homes local grant and warm homes social housing fund. We fund five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net-zero projects and attract commercial investment.

Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to biodiversity targets, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. On climate adaptation, the Government work closely with local authorities, including strategic authorities and mayors, a number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts.

Given such existing support, it remains my opinion that adding a broad new statutory duty is not the right approach. Local authorities already operate within a wide range of environmental and climate-related duties. Introducing an additional, overarching obligation could increase administrative burdens and cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, and reduce local flexibility. Instead, we are focused on enabling councils to use their existing powers effectively. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

I thank noble Lords for this very short debate. I thank the Minister for her comments and the noble Lord for his. What I am hearing is that it costs too much to actually fulfil our climate change commitments. I find that extraordinary, given how much we are seeing climate change drive up so many other costs day in, day out.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have just set out a wide range of projects, some of them running into billions of pounds that the Government are spending on this topic.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply to that comment, but I also make the point that we are talking about devolved authorities. If we have climate change sceptics as the mayors of these devolved authorities, I can see very few of these opportunities being taken up. But I take the point being made and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 311 withdrawn.